Martinsville Approach

C Kingsbury wrote:
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...


What is telling is that if you start on the approach and don't make it to

the

final segment, you're kind of in limbo when below the MSA if you need to

bail.

I was taught to not initiate the missed approach procedure until reaching
the missed approach point for just this reason. The missed approach
procedure assumes you're starting from the MAP and provides obstacle
clearance accordingly.

Precisely, that's the reason, I was just pointing out that it's unlikely
to have been an issue in this approach.

According to the FAA report, the were on the miss for the LOC 30 approach.

Kevin Chandler wrote:
According to the FAA report, the were on the miss for the LOC 30 approach.

Where could I see that report? Thanks.

"Dave Butler" wrote in message ...
Kevin Chandler wrote:
According to the FAA report, the were on the miss for the LOC 30 approach.

Where could I see that report? Thanks.


FAA's reports of recent accidents is easily accessible through www.faa.gov. Specifically
http://faa.gov/avr/aai/B_1025_N.txt.

But maybe he's talking about something else, because this report did not specify that it was the localizer
approach (only that he was inbound to runway 30, and made a missed approach).

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"Kevin Chandler" wrote in message
...
According to the FAA report, the were on the miss for the LOC 30 approach.



Plate from AirNav: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0410/05648L30.PDF

This looks ugly in some ways but sitting idly here on my butt at home this
doesn't strike me as a "gotcha" approach. If you can manage any kind of
climb and don't start the miss too soon, it would seem like you have plenty
of clearance.

There are 2 obstacles higher than MDA (assuming DME which a King Air would
likely have): one 150' above about 3nm away and one 300' higher 5nm away.
Assuming worst possible winds and failure to correct it's easy to see you
getting blown towards the obstacles. But so long as you keep climbing at any
kind of rate you should have no problem clearing them, right? Let's say
you're in a 172 near gross and climbing 150fpm, you'll still outclimb them
both, the second quite comfortably.

Am I missing something here?

-cwk.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:33:29 +0000 (UTC), (G Farris)
wrote:

I thought that was contrary to TERPS procedures.

What makes you think that?

What I see in TERPS is that the altitude needs to be sufficient to allow
*holding* or *enroute flight*.

Where do you see a requirement for an altitude high enough to start another
approach?


--ron

In article ,
says...


My apologies for being vague about the approach in question.
I didn't correct it because others cleared it up immediately.



I thought that was contrary to TERPS procedures.

What makes you think that?

What I see in TERPS is that the altitude needs to be sufficient to allow
*holding* or *enroute flight*.

Where do you see a requirement for an altitude high enough to start another
approach?



You're certainly right - It was the "en-route flight" phrase that made me
think the missed approach procedure had to take you above MSA. In practice,
I've seen missed approach holds that are slightly lower than the published
IAF's, but I can't remember seeing one where they hold you at an altitude that
does not provide terrain clearance in the immediate (10nm) vicinity of the
airport.

G Faris

G Farris wrote:

I know it's not considered good form to discuss or speculate on accidents
before the factual reports are released - however I'll bet I'm not the only
one who pulls up an approach plate when hearing about an accident on an IFR
approach. In my opinion, as long as the interest remains technical, and the
discussion respectful, we should not be held to any specious rule of silence
about accidents. Afer all, they are one of our best sources of learning, and
the primary source for rule-making - so it should be both natural and wise to
take an interest.

Looking at the RNAV approach plate for Martinsville, I notice that the missed
approach altitude is lower than the obstacle clearance altitude required to
make another approach. This means, after a missed, you would have to climb out
of the holding altitude to reach a safe altitude to make a second try on the
same approach. I thought that was contrary to TERPS procedures.

G Faris

Not contrary to TERPs at all. A missed approach must be capable of supporting
holding or en route flight, not return to fly another approach. In this case, the
terrain over the airport and in all quadrants except the NW area is flat as a
pancake. The MEA for the airway where the missed approach hold is located is
3,000 feet.

If someone wants to leave the area, they are all set. If they want to fly another
IAP they have a lot of room to crank back on up to 5500.

Didn't realize they were missed off the LOC RWY 30.
This almost precludes a misreading of the chart, as the missed for this
approach is a climbing right turn back to the LOM at 2600.
Presumably, they knew the airport, so they would have been aware of terrain
issues in the NW quadrant - we'll have to await more factual information to
know whether they had an airplane problem or a major distraction to cause them
to fly straight ahead. Condolances to all of them, and their loved ones.

G Faris

Flying the approach seems so basic .. especially with 2 pilots .. that it
sure makes you wonder about a failure of some sort that distracted the
crew.


"G Farris" wrote in message
...
Didn't realize they were missed off the LOC RWY 30.
This almost precludes a misreading of the chart, as the missed for this
approach is a climbing right turn back to the LOM at 2600.
Presumably, they knew the airport, so they would have been aware of
terrain
issues in the NW quadrant - we'll have to await more factual information
to
know whether they had an airplane problem or a major distraction to cause
them
to fly straight ahead. Condolances to all of them, and their loved ones.

G Faris